Shall  the  Treaty  of  Peace  Be 
One  of  Justice  or  One  of  Infamy? 


AN  APPEAL 

to 

The  Members  of  the  Senate 
of  the  United  States 


by 

Major  Louis  Livingston  Seaman,  M.D.,  L.L.D.,  P.E.G.S. 


President,  Emeritus  o_f  The  China  Society  of  America 


“The  good  old  rule,  the  simple  plan, 

That  they  should  take  who  have  the  power. 
And  they  should  keep  who  can.” 


NEW  YORK,  JULY  29,  1919. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 
Columbia  University  Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/shalltreatyofpeaOOseam_0 


An  Appeal  to  the  Members  of  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States. 

Shall  the  Treaty  of  Peace  Be  One  of  Justice,  or  One  of 

Infamy  ? 

That  is  the  question  the  United  States  is  now  called 
upon  to  consider,  and  the  destiny  of  Nations  hangs  on 
the  decision.  America  entered  the  great  war  as  the 
champion  of  smaller  nations — to  preserve  the  indepen- 
dence of  imperiled  countries,  and  to  rescue  civilization 
from  barbarism.  From  its  birth  our  Republic  has  stood 
for  the  rights  of  the  oppressed.  Our  ideals  have  been  for 
Liberty  and  Justice.  Our  great  civil  conflict  removed 
the  blot  of  slavery  from  our  land — our  Spanish  Campaign 
gave  freedom  and  prosperity  and  happiness  to  an  en- 
slaved people  in  Cuba  and  in  the  Philippines,  and  our 
compensation  for  the  sacrifice  was  the  gratification  of  our 
ideals.  We  acknowledged  no  masters,  and  we  do  not 
propose  to. 

The  problem  today  is  the  ratification  of  the  Peace 
Treaty  with  the  Huns  and  the  creation  of  a League  of 
Nations.  Shall  the  Fourth  of  July,  1919,  pass  into  history 
as  the  last  anniversary  of  American  independence? 
Shall  we,  by  agreeing  to  Article  10  of  the  covenant  of  the 
League  of  Nations  surrender  our  sovereignty  gained  in 
1776,  to  Great  Britain,  who  by  a vote  of  six  to  one,  can 
impose  upon  us  the  incalculable  obligation  of  preserving 
the  territorial  integrity  and  political  independence  of  her- 
self or  any  member  of  the  League  of  Nations  in  any  part 
of  the  globe?  Are  we  prepared  to  submit  our  traditional 
attitude  regarding  purely  American  questions  to  a tri- 
bunal in  which  we  are  in  such  a hopeless  minority  or  in 
which  the  vote  of  New  Zealand  could  count  as  equal  to 


3 


our  own?  Shades  of  Washington  and  Jefferson!  What 
would  be  their  verdict  if  they  could  witness  the  depths 
to  which  our  land  has  been  dragged  in  order  to  gratify 
the  personal  ambition  and  egotism  of  the  “too  proud  to 
fight”  pacifist  who  in  the  Peace  Conference  at  Paris  has 
been  so  hopelessly  outwitted  by  trained  European  and 
Oriental  diplomacy  that  today  he  is  the  laughing 
stock  of  European  statesmen,  and  whose  refusal  to  pre- 
pare for  the  inevitable,  resulted  in  a prolongation  of  the 
war  for  more  than  a year,  the  loss  of  more  than  a million 
lives,  the  destruction  of  property  inestimable,  and  suffer- 
ing and  misery  that  cannot  be  described  or  measured. 
And  poor  China — whose  Government,  in  the  opinion  of 
many  competent  authorities,  has  given  more  happiness 
and  individual  liberty  to  a greater  mass  of  humanity 
than  any  other  Government  in  the  world — whose  rep- 
resentatives were  promised  by  our  President  that  if 
their  country  entered  the  war  in  1917  their  territorial 
integrity  would  be  preserved — where  will  China  stand  if 
this  unholy  alliance  is  consummated,  and  Shantung — 
the  birthplace  of  Confucius,  sacred  to  the  Chinese — with 
its  forty  million  inhabitants  turned  over  to  the  tender 
mercy  of  the  Japanese  whose  policy  of  territorial  ag- 
grandizement rivals  that  of  the  European  nations,  as 
witnessed  in  Korea,  Manchuria  and  the  Pacific  Isles,  and 
whose  threats  of  aggression,  made  at  the  point  of  the 
bayonet,  prevented  China’s  entrance  in  the  war  in  its 
earliest  days? 

In  August,  1914,  I cabled  Wu  Ting  Fang,  Secre- 
tary of  State  of  China,  from  Ostend,  Belgium  imploring 
China  to  sever  diplomatic  relations  and  declare  war  on 
Germany  at  once — to  immediately  seize  all  territory  in 
China  then  occupied  by  Germany,  to  refuse  further  pay- 
ment of  indemnity  for  the  Boxer  uprising,  and  to  demand 
repayment  of  all  indemnities  already  paid,  together  with 
substantial  damages  for  German  occupation  of  Chinese 
territory.  All  this  I then  regarded,  and  still  regard,  as 


4 


the  moral  right  of  China,  for  there  would  have  been  no 
Boxer  uprising  had  it  not  been  for  Germany’s  policy  of 
barbarism  and  aggression,  when  in  carrying  out  the 
Kaiser’s  order  “to  behave  like  Huns,”  they  committed 
acts  of  “Kultur”  and  cruelty  that  challenged  those  since 
perpetrated  in  Belgium  and  Poland.  Now  is  China’s 
opportunity  to  regain  her  lost  provinces  and  obtain  jus- 
tice, and  the  people  of  the  United  States  who  are  famil- 
iar with  the  conditions  and  know  the  truth  demand  that 
the  United  States  Senate  shall  secure  this  result. 

It  was  hoped  that  the  carnival  of  territorial  lust,  which 
for  centuries  caused  untold  bloodshed  the  world  over, 
had  culminated  in  the  partitioning  of  Africa — the  last  of 
the  continents  to  be  parceled  off  by  the  world’s  looters, 
who  in  the  division  of  the  spoils,  followed,  as  the  robber 
barons  of  feudal  days, 

“The  good  old  rule,  the  simple  plan. 

That  they  should  take  who  have  the  power. 

And  they  should  keep  who  can.” 

But  look  at  China  today — that  grand  old  country,  with 
its  great  wall  which  for  over  twenty  centuries  protected 
it  from  the  hordes  of  Tartars  and  Mongols  on  the  north, 
while  its  Thibetan  ranges  on  the  west,  and  impenetrable 
forests  on  the  south,  permitted  it  to  live  in  peace  and 
tranquillity  thousands  of  years,  with  no  fear  of  molesta- 
tion by  “foreign  devils,”  from  land  or  sea.  And  in  this 
time  the  beautiful  but  fallacious  philosophy  of  Confu- 
cius, which  taught  the  rule  of  moral  suasion  rather  than 
that  by  might,  grew  until  its  essence  was  expressed  in 
the  proverb,  “Better  have  no  child  than  one  who  is  a 
soldier” — this,  too,  in  a land  where  it  is  considered  a dis- 
grace to  die  childless. 

And  what  was  the  natural  result  of  this  pacifism?  A 
condition  of  insecurity,  of  defenselessness,  of  inability 
to  enforce  that  first  law  of  nature — self-protection — fol- 


5 


lowed,  which  when  realized  by  the  Occidental  nations 
resulted  in  their  seizing  great  sections  of  her  domains 
upon  trivial  excuses,  and  wringing  most  valuable  con- 
cessions from  her  rulers. 

As  a direct  result  of  this  spoliation,  the  worm  at  last 
turned,  and  the  Boxer  uprising  of  BlOO  followed,  having 
for  its  declared  purpose  the  forcible  expulsion  of  all  for- 
eigners from  the  country,  and  the  recovery  by  China  of 
her  despoiled  possessions.  I say,  without  fear  of  contra- 
diction by  those  who  are  familiar  with  that  issue  (and 
I was  there),  that  that  uprising  was  one  of  the  most 
splendid  exhibitions  of  patriotism  witnessed  in  modern 
times.  The  methods  pursued  by  the  Chinese,  due  to  the 
ignorance  of  their  misguided  leaders,  and  the  horrors 
that  followed,  have  afforded  the  theme  for  many  a tragic 
tale  and  numberless  explanatory  theories.  But  the  plain 
fact  cannot  be  gainsaid,  nor  too  strongly  emphasized, 
that  the  essential  motive  of  that  propaganda  was  the 
freeing  of  the  land  from  the  hated  foreigners,  who,  in  cur- 
rent phrase,  had  “robbed  the  people  of  their  country.” 

It  was  then,  that  in  reprisal  and  revenge,  the  so-called 
civilized  world  turned  against  them.  The  eight  allied 
armies  of  the  “great  powers”  marched  to  their  capital, 
slaughtered  their  people,  raped  their  women,  looted  their 
temples,  their  treasure  and  their  habitations,  committed 
brutalities  that  rivaled  those  of  the  Huns  in  the  recent 
great  tragedy,  and  created  a sentiment  in  China  which 
fairly  crucified  Christianity,  and  which  should  redound  to 
the  shame  and  humiliation  of  the  Christian  nations  whose 
forces  participated  in  the  outrages ; but  which,  instead, 
secured  monstrous  indemnities  and  subjected  China  to 
the  most  humiliating  terms  of  peace  that  were  ever  in- 
flicted upon  a nation,  and  that  have  kept  her  poverty- 
stricken  ever  since.  America,  however,  has  some  reason 
for  pride  in  that  she  waived  claims  to  over  half  the  in- 
demnity, whilst  her  great  statesman,  John  Hay,  suc- 
ceeded temporarily  in  preserving  the  integrity  of  the 
country  by  his  splendid  policy  of  the  “open  door.” 


6 


Never  shall  I forget  that  winter  at  Ching  Wan  Tao, 
following  the  war,  where  detachments  of  the  allied  army 
were  gathered  awaiting  the  fate  of  China.  They  re- 
minded me  of  a pack  of  hungry  wolves  around  the  car- 
cass of  a dead  animal — each  fearing  to  set  his  fangs  in 
the  carcass,  lest  while  so  engaged  his  neighbor  might  do 
the  same  with  him.  And  so  during  the  long  negotiations 
that  finally  led  to  the  declaration  of  peace,  the  situation 
continued. 

Four  years  later  I again  visited  that  scene,  and  there, 
in  srhaller  numbers,  were  found  the  troops  of  many  na- 
tions still  waiting,  ready  to  seize  the  first  opportunity 
to  partition  the  country  and  to  secure  their  share  of  the 
spoil.  But  more  pressing  engagements  were  then  immi- 
nent, involving  the  attention  of  some  of  the  powers.  The 
Russo-Japanese  struggle  was  on,  and  China  was  given  a 
temporary  respite.  From  that  time  until  the  outbreak 
of  the  revolution  which  led  to  the  establishment  of  the 
Republic,  China  paid  the  indemnity  claims  with  such 
regularity  that  no  opportunity  was  found  for  interfer- 
ence. 

For  more  than  three-quarters  of  a centuiy,  beginning 
with  the  unrighteous  Opium  War,  and  even  later, 
China  has  been  subjected  to  a series  of  squeezes  and 
despoilment  of  her  territory  to  an  extent  unequaled  in 
history.  The  iniquitous  indemnities  wrung  from  her  as 
the  result  of  the  Boxer  campaign  would  have  been  re- 
versed, and  the  countries  now  receiving  them  would 
be  paying  for  the  outrages  committed,  had  right,  instead 
of  might,  prevailed.  The  powerful  governments  and 
financial  institutions  doing  business  in  the  Orient  have 
become  obsessed  with  the  idea  that  it  is  legitimate  busi- 
ness to  “squeeze”  the  country,  regardless  of  right  or 
justice,  and  in  transferring  the  so-called  German  rights  in 
Shantung  to  Japan  the  Big  Three  are  today  continuing 
that  policy — and  making  our  country,  the  United  States, 
underwriters  to  the  unholy  deal. 


7 


The  ef¥ect  upon  China  of  the  spoliation  of  her  terri- 
tory and  finances  created  among  the  leading  minds  of 
her  people  an  appreciation  of  her  weakness,  and  of  the 
necessity  for  the  adoption  of  Occidental  methods  for 
self-protection.  They  saw  the  absolute  imbecility  of 
continuing  the  policy  of  the  Manchu  dynasty,  and  the 
necessity  for  a change  of  government  and  the  Chinese 
Republic  became  a reality.  The  character  of  the  revo- 
lution which  made  it  possible  was  remarkable.  It  ob- 
tained the  maximum  of  liberty  with  the  minimum  of 
bloodshed.  It  was  an  evolution  rather  than  a revolution, 
the  most  potent  factors  of  which  were  those  of  peace, 
and  not  of  war.  They  were  the  results  of  trade  with 
foreign  nations,  the  importation  of  modern  inventions, 
railroads,  telegraphs,  newspapers ; the  work  of  Christian 
missionaries,  schools  and  colleges  established  by  them ; 
but,  most  of  all,  the  influence  of  Chinese  students  who 
had  been  educated  in  foreign  universities,  and  who  car- 
ried back  to  their  native  land  the  high  ideals  of  Occidental 
government.  In  comparison  with  the  epoch-making  wars 
for  freedom  in  Occidental  lands — the  French  revolution, 
England’s  fight  for  Magna  Charta,  or  our  own  great 
seven  years’  struggle  for  independence — the  Chinese  rev- 
olution was  almost  bloodless.  It  is  stated  that  the  total 
mortality  of  the  war  which  secured  the  emancipation  of 
400,000,000  of  people,  was  less  than  the  number  lost  in 
the  Battle  of  the  Wilderness,  or  in  single  conflicts  in  the 
war  just  concluded. 

The  moderation  shown  by  the  successful  leaders  to 
their  late  rulers,  was  another  striking  characteristic.  In- 
stead of  the  guillotine  or  exile,  they  were  retired  with 
liberal  pensions,  and  allowed  to  retain  their  empty  titles. 
The  leaders  enjoined  upon  their  followers  the  protection 
of  life  and  property,  both  commercial  and  missionary, 
and  these  orders  were  strictly  obeyed. 

A people  who  carried  to  a successful  termination  such 
a revolution,  deserve  the  respect  and  recognition  of  the 


8 


world  in  their  present  great  crisis.  The  enemies  and  loot- 
ers of  China  today  forget  the  traditions  of  the  race — that 
China  was  old  when  Chaldea  and  Babylon  were  young, 
that  she  saw  the  rise  and  fall  of  Grecian  and  Roman 
civilization,  and  that  she  has  maintained  the  integrity  and 
honor  of  her  government  ever  since ; that  her  scholars 
discovered  the  compass  and  invented  the  intellectual 
game  of  chess,  when  the  Huns  of  Europe  and  the  Jap- 
anese were  groveling  in  the  darkness  of  mediaevalism ; 
that  she  produced  her  own  science,  literature,  art,  philos- 
ophy and  religion,  whose  founder,  Confucius,  five  hun- 
dred years  before  the  birth  of  Christ,  expounded  the  doc- 
trine of  Christianity  in  the  saying;  “Do  not  do  unto 
others  what  you  would  not  have  others  do  unto  you.” 
They  forget  that  for  nearly  a thousand  years  China  has 
been  nearer  a democracy  in  many  features  of  its  govern- 
ment than  any  other  government  then  in  existence.  The 
fundamental  unit  of  democracy,  the  foundation  upon 
which  our  own  government  rests,  is  embodied  in  the 
principle  of  the  New  England  town  meeting.  All  author- 
ities on  democracy,  De  Tocqueville,  Bryce  and  the 
Compte  de  Paris,  agree  in  this  and  in  China  all  local  gov- 
ernment for  centuries  has  been  controlled  by  local  author- 
ities. 

The  Chinese  have  never  sought  territorial  aggran- 
dizement, but  have  loved  the  paths  of  peace  where  the 
law  of  moral  suasion,  and  not  of  might,  ruled.  They  pos- 
sess qualities  of  industry,  economy,  temperance  and 
tranquillity,  unsurpassed  by  any  nation  on  earth.  With 
these  qualities  they  are  in  the  great  race  of  the  survival 
of  the  fittest  to  stay.  They  are  to  be  feared  by  foreign 
nations  more  for  their  virtues  than  for  their  vices ; and  in 
their  present  struggle  for  the  maintenance  of  their  ter- 
ritory, they  deserve  our  earnest  sympathy  and  support. 
Will  America,  the  champion  of  justice,  now  desert  that 
grand  old  country  and  witness  its  vivisection  when  we 
have  the  power  to  prevent  it? 


9 


The  Japanese  claim  their  country  is  overcrowded  and 
they  require  more  room  for  their  increasing  population. 
Is  this  a legitimate  reason  that  the  450  million  Chinese 
should  be  crowded  out  of  the  land  in  which  they  have 
lived  for  6,000  years?  Is  China  to  become  a second 
Honolulu  where  60%  of  the  population  are  Japanese? 

Japan  has  already  been  rewarded  many  times  for  her 
contribution  to  the  victory  of  the  allies  in  being  relieved 
of  the  threatening  danger  from  Germany  Avhich,  when  in 
possession  of  Kauo  Chau,  strategically  commanded  the 
Japanese  Sea,  and  where  a strong  navy  would  be  a per- 
petual menace ; and  also,  by  the  award  of  the  rich  islands 
north  of  the  Equator,  which  seem  to  be  forgotten  when 
this  subject  is  discussed. 

Dr.  David  Jayne  Hill  our  former  ambassador  to  Ger- 
many stated  in  the  North  American  Review  that  the 
Senate  “can  ratify  the  Treaty  of  Peace  and  at  the  same 
time  can  reject  a compact  for  the  League  of  Nations.” 
We  hope  the  Senate  will  exercise  its  Constitutional  right 
and  defeat  the  creation  of  any  League  which  is  founded 
upon  such  monstrous  injustice  to  a land  which  so  richly 
deserves  our  protection,  but  which  Mr.  Wilson,  who 
recognized  it  as  a Republic,  has  deserted. 

Defeated  and  made  the  laughing  stock  by  the  diplo- 
macy of  Lloyd  George  and  the  Japanese  who,  to  use  the 
language  of  the  street,  “put  it  all  over  him”  while  I was 
in  Paris  in  the  last  days  of  the  Peace  Congress  through 
the  bluff  of  recognizing  no  color  distinctions  in  the 
League  of  Nations — Wilson  after  urging  the  participation 
of  China  in  the  war,  deliberately  reversed  his  position — 
granted  rights  that  never  existed  to  Japan  and,  to  save 
his  face,  now  seeks  to  have  his  action  endorsed  by  the 
American  people.  Was  such  a travesty  of  injustice  ever 
attempted  before  and  does  he  think  he  can  “fool  all  the 
American  people  all  of  the  time,”  including  the  United 
States  Senate? 

The  covenant  of  the  League  of  Nations  is  presumed 
to  be  based  upon  equity.  When  I studied  law,  the  first 


10 


axiom  in  that  court  was,  “He  who  comes  into  equity 
must  come  with  clean  hands.”  Does  Japan  after  her 
treatment  of  Korea  and  her  secret  treaties  won  by  bribes 
and  threats,  come  into  this  court  with  clean  hands?  Ger- 
many had  no  more  rights  in  Shantung  than  a robber, 
who  forcibly  enters  a house  at  night  and  whose  expul- 
sion could  not  be  enforced  by  its  owner.  I was  in  Shan- 
tung at  the  time  these  so-called  rights  were  claimed  and 
the  whole  world  knows  how  baseless  they  are.  It  also 
knows  how  much  value  the  hypocritical  Hun  places  on 
a so-called  “missionary.”  And  now  Japan  for  the  insig- 
nificant part  she  played  in  the  war,  where  her  entire  mor- 
tality amounted  to  about  800,  demands  these  so-called 
rights  of  Germany  and  many  others  as  her  share  of  the 
swag.  And  she  further  demands  the  stamp  of  approval 
of  the  Peace  Commission  and  League  of  Nations.  And 
America’s  self-appointed  representative,  Mr.  Wilson,  and 
his  rubber  stamp  associates  approve  these  demands. 
What  would  Lincoln  and  Burlingame  and  Hay,  who  won 
the  respect  and  confidence  of  China  through  honest  treat- 
ment and  the  establishment  of  the  policy  of  the  “Open 
Door”  say  if  they  were  here!  Would  they  not  with  one 
voice  damn  a document,  whose  initial  act  was  of  such 
monstrous  injustice  and  will  the  United  States  Senate  do 
less  ? 

China’s  contribution  to  the  victory  of  the  Allies  was 
far  greater  than  that  of  Japan.  With  100,000  men  in  the 
trenches  in  Belgium  and  France  (and  I was  there  and  saw 
many  who  will  never  return),  and  another  100,000  in  the 
munition  plants  of  England,  China  did  her  part  in  defeat- 
ing the  Hun.  She  did  this  at  the  instigation  of  the  United 
States ; and  unless  something  is  done  to  disassociate  our 
name  from  the  proposed  Shantung  settlement  of  the 
Peace  Treaty,  the  Chinese  people  for  generations  to  come, 
will  regard  America  and  Americans  with  suspicion  and 
contempt. 

If  the  whole  structure,  erected  for  safeguarding  the 
peace  of  the  world,  and  preventing  a “breaking  of  its 


11 


heart,”  depends  on  the  rape  of  a nation  of  400,000,000  inno- 
cent souls  who  trust  to  the  honor  of  America  for  justice, 
then  let  the  structure  undergo  reconstruction,  or  let  Am- 
erica refuse  to  be  a party  to  such  a crime.  A structure, 
founded  upon  treachery  or  injustice  is  not  one  to  receive 
the  endorsement  of  a nation  whose  inheritance  of  freedom 
was  bequeathed  as  a rich  legacy  by  a once  hardy,  brave 
and  patriotic,  but  now  lamented  and  departed  race  of 
ancestors,  and  whose  duty  it  is  to  transmit  it  to  coming 
generations  “unprofaned  and  undecayed  by  the  lapse  of 
time.” 

And  just  here  it  might  be  pertinent  to  ask  who  re- 
quested Japan’s  assistance,  or  intervention  in  driving 
the  Huns  out  of  Kiao  Chau?  Did  China?  Oh,  no! 
Japan  began  hostilities  when  China  was  not  at  war  with 
Germany.  She  landed  her  troops  more  than  a hundred 
miles  north  of  Tsing  Tao,  and  marched  them  through 
Chinese  territory,  subsisting  them  largely  on  the  country 
through  which  they  passed  (thus  committing  what  is 
usually  called  a trespass)  and  with  the  assistance  of  the 
British  and  Chinese,  the  4,000  Germans  were  defeated. 
But  let  it  be  distinctly  understood,  that  with  the  British 
fleet  blockading  the  harbor  of  Kiao  Chau-— the  Chinese 
could  have  accomplished  the  same  result  without  assist- 
ance from  Japan  or  any  other  power. 

In  discussing  the  Shantung  question.  Professor  Jere- 
miah W.  Jenks,  Research  Professor  of  Government  and 
Public  Administration  and  Director  of  the  Far  Eastern 
Bureau  says : 

“In  laying  plans  for  the  control  of  Shantung,  Ja- 
pan has  been  playing  for  a big  prize,  for  the  control  of 
Kiao  Chau  and  the  railroads  of  Shantung  practically 
means  the  control  of  the  capital  province  of  China,  and 
of  the  chief  normal  shipping  port  for  all  of  North  China. 
The  war  gave  her  an  excuse  to  seize  Kiao  Chau,  which 
she  did  on  November  6,  1914.  Her  next  step  in  China 
was  to  present  in  Januar}^  1915,  a secret  series  of  demands, 


12 


which  if  granted  would  in  the  near  future  enable  Japan 
to  dominate  the  policy  of  China  from  the  military,  finan- 
cial and  political  viewpoints.  The  Japanese  government 
at  first  falsely  denied  that  such  demands  had  been  made, 
and  when  it  saw  it  could  not  conceal  the  fact  it  gave  out 
a list  of  “requests,”  suppressing  altogether  those  that 
most  endangered  China’s  sovereignty.  Under  threat  of 
war  China  acceded  to  all  the  demands  but  Group  V, 
which  would  have  made  her  a subject  nation.  Japan 
stated  that  Group  V would  be  reserved  for  further  con- 
sideration. From  the  time  that  Japan  seized  Kiao  Chau, 
she  has  treated  Shantung  as  a conquered  province,  oc- 
cupying the  German  buildings  for  military  and  admin- 
istrative purposes,  placed  guards  along  the  railway  line 
to  the  capital,  has  assumed  military  control  of  property 
and  has  instituted  civil  government  over  the  sections  she 
occupies.  Confirmation  by  the  Big  Three  of  Japan’s 
claims  to  this  territory,  with  the  unwritten  understand- 
ing that  Japan  shall  eventually  return  it  to  China,  has 
roused  a storm  of  indignation  among  Chinese  every- 
where, and  there  are  reports  that  the  Chinese  will  resort 
to  their  most  effective  weapon,  a boycott  against  all 
things  Japanese,”  which,  if  not  successful,  may  be  fol- 
lowed by  war. 

Senator  Borah  stated  the  case  admirably  when  he 
said,  “The  Shantung  provision  should  come  out  of  this 
treaty  definitely  and  conclusively.  It  is  no  different  in 
principle  from  the  arrangement  with  reference  to  Alsace- 
Lorraine  fifty  years  ago.  It  is  in  fact  no  different  in  prin- 
ciple from  the  dismemberment  of  Poland  nearly  200 
years  ago.  Both  of  these  transactions  planted  the  seeds 
of  future  wars,  and  both  went  far  to  impeach  and  destroy 
the  moral  prestige  of  all  nations  responsible  for  these 
crimes.  The  mark  of  Cain  has  been  upon  them  ever 
since.” 

As  already  stated — the  question  the  Senate  has  to  de- 
termine is,  whether  it  will  endorse  the  decision  of  the 


13 


Peace  Conference  in  the  Shantung  controversy  and 
thereby  make  America  an  underwriter  of  that  outrage? 
If  it  decides  that  the  fictitious  claims  of  Japan  to  the  so- 
called  German  rights  in  Shantung  shall  be  transferred 
from  China  to  Japan,  it  will  compound  a felony,  it  will 
commit  an  act  of  perfidy  unsurpassed  in  American  his- 
tory, and  it  will  be  an  act  of  injustice  to  China  that  is 
destined  to  bring  about  another  war  in  the  near  future 
in  which  the  brutality  and  mortality  are  likely  to  far  ex- 
ceed the  record  of  the  great  tragedy  just  ended.  Instead 
of  proving  an  instrument  for  the  preservation  of  peace 
its  first  result  is  likely  to  provoke  a just  and  righteous 
war.  In  case  China  should  decide  to  fight  for  the  reten- 
tion of  her  rights,  on  which  side  will  America — ordered 
by  Lloyd  George — array  her  armies?  The  Chinese  have 
long  memories.  I well  remember  a conversation  with 
His  Excellency  Li  Hung  Chang  in  his  Yamen  in  Peking 
during  the  Boxer  War,  when  we  were  discussing  the 
danger  from  the  prolonged  presence  of  the  allied  armies 
in  China.  “Oh,”  he  said,  “they  will  not  stay  long.’ 
“Well,”  I replied,  “the  Manchus  remained  some  time — 
nearly  three  hundred  years.”  “What  is  300  years  in  the 
life  of  China?”  was  his  answer.  And  in  that  time  the 
Manchus  had  been  absorbed. 

In  the  comparatively  recent  Ty  Ping  rebellion  the 
mortality  amounted  to  over  15  millions.  If  the  military 
awakening  of  China  occurs  as  a result  of  the  wrongs  to 
which  it  has  been  subjected  by  the  Peace  Commission 
the  war  that  will  follow  and  the  mortality  that  will  result 
will  be  without  precedent. 

Query. — As  a starter  for  Perpetual  Peace,  is  the 
United  States  prepared  to  assume  this  responsibility? 
And,  is  a League  of  Nations  based  on  such  a damnable, 
fraudulent  and  iniquitous  foundation  likely  to  serve  as 
an  inspiration  for  humanity  and  to  bring  about  “Peace  on 
earth  and  good  will  toward  men?” 


14 


The  following  resolution  was  passed  at  a recent  meet- 
ing of  The  American  Defense  Society : 

Resolved,  That  the  American  Defense  Society 
requests  the  Senate  not  to  ratify  those  provisions 
in  the  Peace  Treaty  which  convey  to  Japan  the 
rights,  interests  and  privileges  heretofore  held  in 
the  Province  of  Shantung  by  the  Empire  of  Ger- 
many, and  that  a copy  of  this  resolution  be  trans- 
mitted to  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  For- 
eign Relations  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States. 

MAJOR  LOUIS  LIVINGSTON  SEAMAN, 

M.D.,  L.L.D.,  F.R.G.S. 

President,  Emeritus  of  The  China  Society  of  America. 


New  York,  July  29th,  1919. 


18 


''4 


